Science has been unfairly hijacked by atheism

[john5746]

What is the point of you?

 

Why does their need to be a you?

[Phi for All]

What would be the point of there being a god?

 

Why does there even need to be one?

Come on, you know that's not the purpose of this thread. That way lies thread closure.

 

The fact is there are a lot of people who have faith in something heretofore unobserved, and there are a lot of people who say if you can't observe it it's not there. They both exist and neither group seems inclined to just go away, and neither group is likely to influence the other with fundamentalist arguments.

[YT2095]

What would be the point of there being a god?

 

Why does there even need to be one?

 

what`s the point of you being Gay?

and the last question back at you!

 

 

 

and before anyone cries Foul, he openly "came out" on SFN some year + ago. so it`s Not an Ad Hom attack!

[Daecon]

I did? Well, you have a better memory than I do!

 

If "God" is needed to start the Universe, where did "God" come from? If "God" doesn't need to have some higher intelligence to bring it into existence from anywhere, why does the Universe? (Probably off topic, though.)

 

Science hasn't been hijacked by atheism, science is and always has been naturally atheistic, because it does not invoke ideas for which there is no proof.

[YT2095]

I did? Well, you have a better memory than I do!

 

oh indeed I have!

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=351433&postcount=14

[Phi for All]

Science hasn't been hijacked by atheism, science is and always has been naturally atheistic, because it does not invoke ideas for which there is no proof.

So science can explain natural phenomena but should remain skeptical about anything claiming to be supernatural.

 

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. Science is certain that there is nothing supernatural because there will eventually be a natural explanation for everything. So why such atheistic adamancy that there can't be a power we can't detect currently? Perhaps God merely manipulates the Higgs boson in ways we can't figure out right now. That would make It *seem* omnipotent but give It a natural explanation, one we may soon be able to observe scientifically for the first time in history.

[Daecon]

So science can explain natural phenomena but should remain skeptical about anything claiming to be supernatural.

 

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. Science is certain that there is nothing supernatural because there will eventually be a natural explanation for everything. So why such atheistic adamancy that there can't be a power we can't detect currently? Perhaps God merely manipulates the Higgs boson in ways we can't figure out right now. That would make It *seem* omnipotent but give It a natural explanation, one we may soon be able to observe scientifically for the first time in history.

 

I think it's called "Occam's Razor".

[Phi for All]

I think it's called "Occam's Razor".

And in the 14th century Occam's Razor told us that the simplest explanation for untreatable illnesses was bad humours and elements. Newton's laws were unborn and the simplest explanations often involved things assumed to be outside of known science.

[SkepticLance]

To Phi for All

 

The modern interpretation of the Principle of Occam's Razer, includes excluding totally unknown hypothetical factors, and concentrating on that which is known. By that standard, 'humours' and things outside known science are excluded.

[Phi for All]

The modern interpretation of the Principle of Occam's Razer, includes excluding totally unknown hypothetical factors, and concentrating on that which is known.

I understand the interpretation. My point all along has been that science considers everything to be natural and knowable. If something isn't known now it isn't unknowable; it's simply not known *now*. If something isn't explainable naturally it isn't supernatural; it's just not explainable naturally *now*.

 

Even the modern interpretation of Occam's Razor isn't used against the process by which we generate explanations, but only to the choice between two or more explanations. Doesn't the scientific process call on us not to make generalizations which presume something can never happen?

[iNow]

As an interesting aside, there is a little known coutner to Occam's Razor written by a guy named Walter Chatton, and it is known as the Chatton Principle or the Anti-Razor:

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/walter-chatton/#AntRaz

[SkepticLance]

To Phi for all

 

I totally agree with your first paragraph. Your final sentence suggests science avoids generalising about unknowns. In other words : "keep an open mind."

 

The reply is that we should always keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out.